Details Show MIT Employees Gleefully Helped With Prosecution And Persecution Of Aaron Swartz

from the sad dept

Mon, Mar 31st 2014 8:52am — Mike Masnick

Last summer, MIT tried (weakly) to defend what it called its "neutral" stance on Aaron Swartz, allowing the case to proceed even though the only party that had a legitimate claim to "harm," JSTOR, had come out almost immediately after Swartz's indictment to say that it did not support the prosecution. Around the same time, we noted that MIT was in the midst of a legal fight to block the release of Swartz's Secret Service file. Some found this effort a bit odd -- but the reasons are now becoming clear. An investigative report by the Boston Globe, scouring 7,000 pages of discovery documents in the case, found that some employees at MIT appeared to gleefully support going after Swartz with all of the powers of the DOJ.

In a handful of e-mails, individual MIT employees involved in the case aired sentiments that were far from neutral. One, for example, gushed to prosecutor Stephen P. Heymann about the quality of the indictment of Swartz.

“Nicely done Steve and kudos! All points . . . are as accurate as I’ve ever seen,” wrote the information technology employee. “(I only say that because every time I’ve ever given an interview, details are always slightly to horribly munged; not that I ever expected any less, it’s just a true relief and very refreshing to see your accuracy and precision).”

Elsewhere, it becomes clear that MIT helped escalate the case when calling in law enforcement. The Globe highlights a note taken by an MIT library staffer who noted that it was "now a federal case" and "All we provide is by choice -- not subpoenaed." Even more damning, a senior MIT network engineer basically seemed to think he was now working for the DOJ:

That cooperation with law enforcement also extended to a senior MIT network engineer who monitored traffic to and from Swartz’s laptop and appeared to be looking to Pickett for instructions. On Jan. 5, having collected 70 gigabytes of network traffic, he e-mailed the agent, “I was just wondering what the next step is.”

The documents also demonstrate that MIT employees "prodded JSTOR to get answers for prosecutors more quickly -- before a subpoena had been issued." That hardly seems "neutral."

The report also notes that MIT -- as admitted by an internal investigation -- "paid little attention to the details of the charge" including the key fact that the CFAA charge depended on this being "unauthorized access." However, since MIT's network was wide open to guests, it was hard to say that it was unauthorized. Yet MIT did little to explain that to prosecutors.

The report also delves into JSTOR's side of things, suggesting that, contrary to its public stance, before Swartz was revealed, it too was pretty angry (often at MIT) and considered calling in law enforcement repeatedly. However, in the end it appears that cooler heads prevailed there, as the organization decided not to pursue those actions. If only the same had happened at MIT.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: aaron swartz, doj, mit, prosecution, stephen heymann
Companies: jstor, mit

108 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

silverscarcat (profile), 31 Mar 2014 @ 8:14am

So...
I'm still wondering if anyone got punished for the overzealous actions taken by that prosecutor which led to Aaron committing suicide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2014 @ 9:57am
  
  Re: So...
  She's now the lead prosecutor of the Boston bombers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mason Wheeler (profile), 31 Mar 2014 @ 10:43am
  
  Re: So...
  The person who caused Aaron Swartz to commit suicide has already been punished for it: he's dead. Can we please stop trying to act like if someone chooses to kill themself, it's someone else's fault?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2014 @ 10:50am
    
    Re: Re: So...
    He's not asking that anybody else be held responsible for Aaron's suicide. He's asking the prosecutor be held responsible for her overzealous prosecution of Swartz.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ninja (profile), 31 Mar 2014 @ 11:49am
    
    Re: Re: So...
    The wording may not be the most suitable but the whole prosecution did contribute. Or do you believe the only one responsible for the suicide of a raped woman that couldn't cope with the trauma is herself? While this case is quite distinct it does not remove the blame from the ones involved in ramping up the charges. And now the MIT employees that pushed for prosecution.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mason Wheeler (profile), 31 Mar 2014 @ 11:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re: So...
      Or do you believe the only one responsible for the suicide of a raped woman that couldn't cope with the trauma is herself?
      
      Yes, and attempting to appeal to highly emotionally-charged scenarios is really not conducive to rational discourse. To take your example and run with it, there are many, many people who get raped and then manage to pull through and find a way to cope with the trauma. Therefore, the suicide is not a consequence of the rape, but a consequence of something else, and the rapist is guilty of rape, but not of "driving someone to suicide."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - MrWilson, 31 Mar 2014 @ 9:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: So...
        Just because the rapist isn't legally guilty of murder when their victim commits suicide, they are morally guilty of contributing to the circumstances that led to the death of their victim. While this might not lead to a criminal conviction for something like a depraved-heart murder charge, it should make the rapist's sentencing harsher when they're convicted of the rape and possibly open them up to a civil lawsuit by the family for wrongful death.
        
        In those respects, our society does have the possibility of recognizing the role that the rapist had in the victim's suicide, and even with due process.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Niall (profile), 1 Apr 2014 @ 6:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: So...
        In the US you have some sort of 'contributory felony' statutes - for instance, if someone dies as part of a felony, all those involved can be charged with murder. So once you accept that as a principle, you can accept that PEOPLE SHOULD ACCEPT RESPONSIBILTY for their psychotic hounding/raping/whatever and pay some kind of price.
        
        Or is it only the poor and other victims who should 'pay' and 'take responsibility'?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Within Reason, 2 Apr 2014 @ 8:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So...
        What we're saying, Mason Wheeler, is that people aren't robots, and if you torment anyone (including you) beyond their ability to take it, something will go *ping!* inside and they'll see suicide as the only way to end it.
        
        Never been so miserable you just couldn't take it any more?
        
        Good for you, pal, but we human beings are emotional creatures and liable to suffer, sometimes till we can't stand it any more.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Ninja (profile), 1 Apr 2014 @ 7:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: So...
        Rational discourse often don't apply to the human side. I'm sure in your world everybody must be Rambo-like and just be though and deal with it. Real world is less than ideal. In both cases (the rape suicide and Aaron) they couldn't cope with the pressure and chose an unfortunate path. Much like some people can withstand more pain or more stress before breaking down.
        
        The prosecution could be charged with overdoing it maybe but does the twisted American law provide that path? If not then the only line of action would be to pressure for better laws and accountability. And if they can be prosecuted then yes the suicide should be taken into consideration. There's a very thin line here and I agree with you that suicide alone should not be a reason for prosecution. But surely it should make things worse for the criminals if they are found guilty.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2014 @ 12:39pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: So...
      You are quick to blame the prosecution, but what of his so-called "friends". To the best of my knowledge, the tech/anarchist community didn't raise funds for his legal defense. I don't know how you make a martyr out of a guy you left to the wolves. There were no demonstrations in from of the prosecutors office, no "We The People" petition. Not much of anything at all from the bunch of cowards who now invoke his name in the furtherance of their own agendas.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Mike Masnick (profile), 31 Mar 2014 @ 4:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: So...
        You are quick to blame the prosecution, but what of his so-called "friends". To the best of my knowledge, the tech/anarchist community didn't raise funds for his legal defense.
        
        The best of your knowledge is wrong, which is not an uncommon occurrence with you.
        
        https://web.archive.org/web/20130123033732/https://free.aaronsw.com/
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2014 @ 4:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So...
        Thanks, Masnick. Maybe you could link me to the article where you publicized this on Techdirt. By the way, how much did you contribute? Anything?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2014 @ 5:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So...
        Keep moving those goalposts.
        
        You: "The tech/anarchist community didn't raise funds for his legal defense."
        
        Mike: "Yes they did. Here's the proof!"
        
        You: "Oh ... proof! Well, of course you have PROOF, but did you ever publish it on Techdirt? Did you?"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2014 @ 9:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So...
        Fair criticism. I was unaware. I read TD, ArsTehnica, The Wire and CNET (sometimes) I'd never heard of this. I don't recall seeing it published in any of those sources nor remember any of those websites actively promoting the Swartz defense fund.
        
        For the tech folk hero he was, it seems surprising that the publicity of a defense fund was so weak. I still find it hypocritical that Swartz is lionized as a martyr here on TD and received very little (if any) tangible support in his time of need by the same poseurs who now claim his legacy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2014 @ 7:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So...
        What a surprise, you actively avoid anything that doesn't agree with your skewed viewpoint on copyright. We can't all be funded by major studios devastated by piracy, you know.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2014 @ 3:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So...
        TD, ArsTehnica, The Wire and CNET
        
        Sorry, exactly which of these agrees with my "skewed viewpoint on copyright"?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Apr 2014 @ 10:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So...
        They don't. You might visit the sites but it's obvious you don't read them, other than to throw a hissy little fit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        G Thompson (profile), 31 Mar 2014 @ 7:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So...
        awwwwwwwwwwww
        
        did the big bad techdirt man make you look like a complete moron with his facts.
        
        awwwwwwwwwwww
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2014 @ 2:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So...
        average_joe just hates it when due process is enforced.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 1 Apr 2014 @ 7:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So...
        Are you really diverting the point that you failed in your reply and the major point that while you can't really blame the prosecution for the suicide but it still bears weight in his decision with that weak attack on Mike? Really?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2014 @ 9:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So...
        It's amusing how Techdirtbag Nation defended that decision not to prosecute (or acquittal, I forget) of the mother who masqueraded as a kid online and hounded a child until she committed suicide.
        
        You assholes were nearly unanimous that the woman could not be held accountable for this unfortunate suicide of a CHILD.
        
        Now you sanctimonious hypocrites want to blame the prosecutors for the suicide of an ADULT with the financial and legal resources to defend himself.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 1 Apr 2014 @ 11:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So...
        You assholes were nearly unanimous that the woman could not be held accountable for this unfortunate suicide of a CHILD.
        
        Now you sanctimonious hypocrites want to blame the prosecutors for the suicide of an ADULT with the financial and legal resources to defend himself.
        
        Personally, I don't blame the "bully" in either of those situations, nor do I hold them accountable per se. Bottom line is that suicide is a personal decision and the blame always resides with the individual committing the act.
        
        Now that said, both of the "bullies" in these situations were assholes and do have some amount of moral (if not legal) culpability for the suicides, in my opinion.
        
        There is one major distinction between the two that you are minimizing though. Some anonymous idiot on the internet does not hold the power to incarcerate you and destroy your future like an Assistant U.S. Attorney does.
        
        With great power comes great responsibility and in my humble opinion, Mr. Stephen Heymann showed an extreme lack of responsibility in his quest for headlines and notoriety.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2014 @ 12:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So...
        Point taken. However, Swartz was a grown man with the intellectual and financial resources to defend himself. At the end of the day, the sentencing guidelines called for a very short period of incarceration (if any) and he was offered a few months in Club Fed in a plea bargain. Instead, he hung himself.
        
        A conviction doesn't "ruin" a life like that. He'd have been a fucking hero and could work anywhere with the possible exception of somewhere requiring a security clearance. However, given his past history, he's not likely to have gotten a clearance anyway.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 1 Apr 2014 @ 4:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So...
        You must not be paying attention...
        
        Every person that goes against the government is considered guilty until proven innocent. To have to go through all of that for doing nothing more than downloading a lot of stuff is ludicrous.
        
        This was a sham from the get go and never should have been a criminal case in the first place.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Within Reason, 2 Apr 2014 @ 8:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So...
        Bottom line is that suicide is a personal decision and the blame always resides with the individual committing the act.
        
        I've already had this argument with Mason Wheeler. Victim-blaming is obscene. Stop it.
        
        The bully in question was perhaps unaware of the child's precarious mental state, but that's no excuse for what she did.
        
        I really do question people who think the way you do. Have you REALLY never suffered so much you couldn't take it any more? Have you never seen anyone else suffer to the point of a mental breakdown? If you've never experienced real suffering, good for you. I've seen people's lives torn apart by trauma and I've seen the results.
        
        It's the price we pay for having intellect and emotions. To deny the impact of trauma on the individual is to trivialize it, and I won't stand for that. Ever.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 2 Apr 2014 @ 8:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So...
        I've already had this argument with Mason Wheeler. Victim-blaming is obscene. Stop it.
        
        How is this "victim-blaming"? The final decision to commit suicide resides with the person committing suicide. Period. Full stop. Nothing anyone else does changes this fact one iota.
        
        You are blaming those who have no say whatsoever in what is ultimately a personal decision. It's like blaming me because you went ahead and drank that expired milk this morning and got sick.
        
        I really do question people who think the way you do. Have you REALLY never suffered so much you couldn't take it any more? Have you never seen anyone else suffer to the point of a mental breakdown? If you've never experienced real suffering, good for you. I've seen people's lives torn apart by trauma and I've seen the results.
        
        I've had some very, very low points in my life, but suicide was never a viable options. I value life too much.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Within Reason, 2 Apr 2014 @ 9:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So...
        So you really, truly don't accept that anyone else's actions can have a detrimental effect on a person, no matter what they do to them?
        
        If you've had low points in your life and won through, good for you. The fact is, you still seem unable to accept that anyone can be affected by anyone else's actions. The evidence says otherwise.
        
        As for the expired milk argument, people eat people if they're hungry enough. I suppose you'd say the blame for the cannibalism lies on the survivors alone.
        
        Human error by the pilots caused the crash because they didn't take into account strong headwinds that slowed the plane and increased the time required to complete the crossing of the pass.
        
        Pilot error creating the conditions that drove people to cannibalism. It was an influencing factor. While it's true that the final decision rests with the individual, the factors that lead to those decisions need to be taken into account. That's why Criminal Solicitaion is a crime. http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/criminal-solicitation/
        
        Were you correct in your assumption, only the person who commits a crime would go to jail. As it is, anyone who encourages the commission of a crime goes to jail, too.
        
        My argument is, creating the conditions for a crime (or self-harming event) to take place is equivalent to criminal solicitation and should be treated as such. Let that slide and you have all sorts of crazy stuff going on and the people responsible getting away with it.
        
        Your argument appears to be, "People live in an emotional and social vacuum. They make decisions free of outside influence, nor can any influence be brought to bear upon them." That is not true.
        
        If I'm wrong, correct me. I like to learn.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 2 Apr 2014 @ 11:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So...
        So you really, truly don't accept that anyone else's actions can have a detrimental effect on a person, no matter what they do to them?
        
        That's not what I said at all. All sorts of things have detrimental effects on people all the time. I'm just not going to jump up on the Blame Game Bandwagon for an individual's personal decision.
        
        Solicitation of suicide has a pretty high legal bar. It needs (I believe, IAMAL) to involve specific instructions to a specific individual. Just saying "you should kill yourself" wouldn't pass the sniff test. I'm not sure about the case of the anonymous woman, but I can guarantee the ADA in Swartz's case didn't do anything like that.
        
        My argument is, creating the conditions for a crime (or self-harming event) to take place is equivalent to criminal solicitation and should be treated as such. Let that slide and you have all sorts of crazy stuff going on and the people responsible getting away with it.
        
        I disagree. That slope is way, way too slippery. What's next? Blaming the victims in a school shooting because they were once said something mean to the shooter? Blaming a rapist's mother because she spanked him when he was young? I mean, seriously, isn't there enough of that shit going on already these days? Everything is someone else's fault and nobody wants to take responsibility for their own actions.
        
        Your argument appears to be, "People live in an emotional and social vacuum. They make decisions free of outside influence, nor can any influence be brought to bear upon them." That is not true.
        
        That's not my argument nor what I believe. I just think blame should be placed where it belongs.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        G Thompson (profile), 2 Apr 2014 @ 9:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So...
        Did you notice the pseudonym of whom you were replying to?
        
        Interesting that "within reason" doesn't actually understand what reasonableness actually is all about.
        
        Also replying to this type of individual who thinks that someone always needs to be blamed vicariously for the actions of others and then goes into victim vilification and 'cannibalism' (wtf!!!) if you don't agree with them makes me re-read again Bennett's rules for dealing with this sort of personality.. Always good reading by any profession not just law ;)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Within Reason, 3 Apr 2014 @ 3:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So...
        Hoo boy!
        
        Okay, from the top... I still think you're trivializing the role that repeated abuse can play in anyone's decision to end the torment they are suffering. Think "cause" and "effect."
        
        Comments like "What's next? Blaming the victims in a school shooting because they [were] once said something mean to the shooter? Blaming a rapist's mother because she spanked him when he was young?" don't make your case.
        
        See how you've trivialized it? "They ONCE said something mean to the shooter" and "she spanked him when he was young" suggest that you don't have any interest in actually arguing the point properly. You've just made it sound like anyone who self-destructs is too thin-skinned and shouldn't be allowed out in public till they've toughened up a bit.
        
        "I mean, seriously, isn't there enough of that shit going on already these days? Everything is someone else's fault and nobody wants to take responsibility for their own actions."
        
        I take responsibility for my decision to reply to you. Nobody made me, it was my choice. I wasn't driven to it by a strong belief that I had no options, I just wanted to post this for the benefit of other readers because I doubt that continuing to reason with you will influence you change your attitude. But then, in terms of how this stuff affects me personally, it's trivial, and if I was upset by this discussion, telling me to get the hell out of it and get a life would be an appropriate response. Can you say the same thing to someone who feels like he's being flushed down the crapper and there's more crap to come? I couldn't.
        
        Where to place the blame for anyone's decisions isn't always cut and dried. When you're in a situation where you can exert some control, it's easy to make positive decisions. When nothing you do seems to make things any better, the number of options decreases.
        
        I don't appreciate the extremism in your viewpoint, or in G Thompson's. I don't ALWAYS blame other people for the decisions I or other people make. I often make bad decisions and they are my own. But then, I've got enough control over those situations to make good or bad decisions. When I don't have enough control, the decisions I make are based on the options available for dealing with the situation. Sometimes there is only "take it" or "leave it."
        
        I believe that Aaron Swartz ran out of options - or at least believed there were only two: go to jail for the rest of his life or take a plea bargain that might still mean years of jail time and defense costs that might cripple him and his family financially, despite the fundraiser. It's hard to think straight when you're hurting, and this wasn't trivial. Prison would have ruined his life, ended his voting rights for many years and affected his employment prospects.
        
        I choose to leave this thread because I'm done now. Toodles!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - notgmo, 31 Mar 2014 @ 6:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: So...
        one second of googling .. https://free.aaronsw.com/
        
        So when you say "To the best of my knowledge" are you saying you're a moron in a hurry?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Atkray (profile), 31 Mar 2014 @ 9:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So...
        Please quit disparaging morons.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Within Reason, 2 Apr 2014 @ 6:02am
    
    Re: Re: So...
    So you've never been hounded and threatened to the point where you were convinced there was only one way out? Good for you, Mason, good for you.
    
    Try compassion on for size, you may find it's a tight fit.
    
    Ready? Okay, try reading through reports of suicide where the circumstances were fully explained. I use to work in a bank and one of the main reasons we received for suicide of our debtors was our constant persecution of them, often at their place of work. Well, their employers would get fed up with it and fire them so they found it even harder to pay us back. As their debts spiraled out of control with interest piling ever upwards and the threatening letters kept flowing through the mailbox in a torrent of paper, they began to think there was only one way out...
    
    So who killed our deceased debtors really? Nobody wants to kill themselves for shits and giggles, they want their torment to end. And when there's no one to defend them or get the pressure off, there's only one way out.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Within Reason, 2 Apr 2014 @ 6:04am
      
      Re: Re: Re: So...
      I don't work there any more, but I'm still haunted by the voice of one widow who was apologizing profusely as she explained that Harry wasn't in because he committed suicide earlier that week.
      
      How could she be so damn polite about it?!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- spodula, 31 Mar 2014 @ 2:06pm
  
  Re: So...
  Yeah, i bet the prosecutor involved got a telling off of epic proportions followed by a really, really harsh promotion.
  He wont be doing that any time soon!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ron Hoare, 31 Mar 2014 @ 8:59am

hmmm
MIT must be full of future RSA employees
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2014 @ 9:01am

Someone breaks in to MIT facilities, and then MIT should assume a neutral stance? Schwartz should be given a "pass" for breaking in because he had what some may view as good intentions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 31 Mar 2014 @ 9:06am
  
  Re:
  How do you break into an open network?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JEDIDIAH, 31 Mar 2014 @ 9:08am
    
    That's not the way they roll.
    Far too many people comment about this stuff without having any clue about it what-so-ever.
    
    I always thought that MIT's open network policies are well known in the computing profession.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jeremy2020 (profile), 31 Mar 2014 @ 9:49am
      
      Re: That's not the way they roll.
      What do you think the odds are that he is someone in the 'computing profession'? What are the odds he understands more than how to turn it on and use the keyboard/mouse?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - JEDIDIAH, 31 Mar 2014 @ 2:38pm
        
        Re: That's not the way they roll.
        On the other hand, there are plenty of people out there with a clue that have no problem telling people that they are wrong. That's the nice thing about being a socially maladjusted technology professional.
        
        So that just leaves you with the obvious next question: why does anyone have any excuse for being ignorant at this point? They don't really. That's especially true for people that bother to read or write responses to articles published on the subject.
        
        You're either not paying attention, or you choose to ignore the facts that are repeated often and enthusiastically.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2014 @ 12:27pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You break into a room that is not open to the public, connect up a laptop to equipment that is in the room, and then you cover the laptop with something in an attempt to conceal what you have done.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2014 @ 12:35pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yes, that highly secure...closet.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 31 Mar 2014 @ 2:44pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "You break into a room that is not open to the public"
      
      He didn't "break into" the equipment closet. He opened the unlocked door.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2014 @ 4:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What would you call it if I walked through the unlocked door of your house? How about if I took a seat in your car?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 31 Mar 2014 @ 4:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well you certainly wouldn't calling it "breaking into" your house or your car. Thanks for providing examples that undermine your claim.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2014 @ 4:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually, opening an unlocked door to someone else's car, home, etc. for which you do not have a right of entry is a "breaking" in most, if not all, jurisdictions.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2014 @ 7:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Forgive him. He's one of the stupider of Mike's toadies.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 31 Mar 2014 @ 9:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Look who's talking.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 1 Apr 2014 @ 12:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ooh, burn!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 1 Apr 2014 @ 12:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Not only do I find your claim doubtful (but feel free to dispel my doubts), most people who aren't lawyers would not call what you described 'breaking in', because they know the meaning of the word 'break'.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2014 @ 7:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Attend law school and you will find it is one of the first topics discussed in Criminal Law. The civil law counterpart is, in general, the tort of trespass.
        
        While lay understanding may suggest something more is needed to constitute "breaking", that understanding understates all manner of conduct that comprises "breaking" under the law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 1 Apr 2014 @ 8:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The legal definition doesn't come into play, though, since he was not charged with "breaking". The term was being used purely in the lay sense.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2014 @ 9:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        My recollection is that he was charged by state and federal authorities, with a state charge being "breaking and entering".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 1 Apr 2014 @ 4:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Further proof that the law is indeed an ass.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2014 @ 7:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I thought the discussion was about a legal matter. Specifically breaking and entering. What good is it to talk about a legal issue and ignore legal doctrine? Other than to help you with your wishful thinking.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 1 Apr 2014 @ 4:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It wasn't a discussion about a legal matter, it was a response to the claim above that "Someone breaks in to MIT facilities".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 1 Apr 2014 @ 8:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It absolutely is legally "breaking". But that's an entirely different thing than the colloquialism "breaking into". The latter implies that he bypassed some kind security.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 1 Apr 2014 @ 8:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'd call it "trespassing".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 31 Mar 2014 @ 9:17am
  
  Re:
  He didn't break in to anything. The worst crime he committed was trespassing, but he certainly didn't "break in" to a physical area or the network.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2014 @ 9:19am
  
  Re:
  "Someone breaks in to MIT facilities..."
  
  No one broke in to MIT facilities.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2014 @ 10:40am
  
  Re:
  Should you be given a pass for being willfully ignorant?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Some Other AC (profile), 31 Mar 2014 @ 11:42am
    
    Re: Re:
    We give you one daily, sometimes hourly.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
madasahatter (profile), 31 Mar 2014 @ 9:12am

Lawsuit
So MIT is wide open for a lawsuit by Aaron's family. This could get ugly fast. I wondered how much MIT egged everyone in this case. MIT = Moron Institute of T*dology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2014 @ 10:37am
  
  Re: Lawsuit
  You should change your name to "dumbasdogshit". What is their cause of action? Cooperating with the police? Aiding law enforcement in investigating a crime? Try to remember that MIT doesn't "press charges". The US Attorney did.
  
  I don't see a big payday here.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - G Thompson (profile), 31 Mar 2014 @ 7:50pm
    
    Re: Re: Lawsuit
    Malicious prosecution, making false statements, negligence based on forfeiture of their own privacy and historical policies & procedures... the list is EXTENSIVE!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2014 @ 7:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Lawsuit
      Funny no lawyer (who actually knows what the fuck he's talking about) has brought such a case. Why don't you contact his estate and offer to fund such a suit?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 1 Apr 2014 @ 8:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Lawsuit
        Why is that important?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 31 Mar 2014 @ 9:17am

Nothing to see here, we did nothing wrong....
We sold out our stated ideals, our staff became lapdogs to the legal system, we praised them for trumping the case up.

Yep can totally see how they arrived at their we didn't do nuffin wrong result.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2014 @ 9:44am

One day, in the future
When academic publishing is open -- that is, not being ruthlessly exploited by middlemen -- and every research paper from every institution is available online for free, MIT is going to look back at this in shame and horror.

They (and JSTOR) (and a clueless, overzealous, egotistical prosecutor) killed Aaron Swartz as surely as if they'd tightened the noose around his neck. They broke his spirit and destroyed his will.

And had Aaron been a violent drug dealer or a serial rapist or a vicious pedophile, someone truly dangerous to society, maybe we could understand their massive response. But he was none of those things. His "crime", if there was one at all, was trying to spread knowledge.

And they killed him for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2014 @ 10:30am
  
  Re: One day, in the future
  Oh, please. You can't get fucked unless you assume the position. Swartz knew what he was doing was wrong. He took pains to shroud his identity online, hide from cameras, run from the cops, etc. It's a pity he didn't think about the consequences and consider whether he was strong enough to deal with it. He was weak; and his way out was to kill himself. Too bad. But he did this to himself.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 31 Mar 2014 @ 10:38am
    
    Re: Re: One day, in the future
    Yes, his suicide was a personal decision that was ultimately his alone. That said, I think it's pretty disingenuous to say that the prosecution's hand on this are clean.
    
    If the prosecutors hadn't gone insane in overcharging him and threatening him with lengthy jail time for what is actually a minor offense, you might have a point in saying they bear no blame whatsoever.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2014 @ 12:46pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: One day, in the future
      The entire series of events was set in motion by Aaron Swartz alone. He was previously investigated by the FBI for a similar stunt and knew, or should have known that he was putting himself in legal peril. But he did it anyway.
      
      And you think this is the prosecutors fault? C'mon man.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Gwiz (profile), 31 Mar 2014 @ 1:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: One day, in the future
        He was previously investigated by the FBI for a similar stunt and knew, or should have known that he was putting himself in legal peril. But he did it anyway.
        
        He was previously investigated and was found to have nothing done illegal because the documents were all in the public domain.
        
        If Aaron had finished downloading the JSTOR database and released ONLY the ones that were in the public domain, it would have been the exact same situation here too. (with the small exception of trespassing in the wiring closet).
        
        You take his previous actions as evidence of wrong doing in the MIT affair. I see it as a learning experience and he knew exactly what was illegal and what wasn't.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2014 @ 2:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One day, in the future
        He knew he was walking the razor's edge. And what he was downloading was NOT all in the public domain. He knew what he was doing, tried to conceal his role and was caught nonetheless. Then when it came time to face the music, he fell apart and killed himself.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2014 @ 2:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One day, in the future
        EVEN IF EVERYTHING HE DID WAS ILLEGAL HOW WAS THAT WORTH WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO TO HIM? WAS SOME STUPID FICTITIOUS LEGAL COPYRIGHT OR SOME FAKE IP WORTH A HUMANS LIFE OR EVEN YEARS OF SAID LIFE... GET off the bandwagon IF IT DOESN'T KILL ANOTHER HUMAN OR PUT THEM IN POSITION FOR INJURY OR LIBERTY IN JEOPARDY WHY IS IT WORTH ALL OF THIS BULLSHIT??? I DONT care what he did or why when i see things like this i have to ask do we need the Cops/Feds to protect this BS with YEARS/LIVES or do we need them to protect against the REAL THREATS??? MURDER IS REAL, SOME TERRORIST ARE REAL (not to the same level they blow things up today) INDUSTRIAL POISONING REAL - BUT COPY SOME ZERO's and ONE's and YOU WANT TO SUPPORT SOMEONE ROTTING IN A PRISON OR DEAD
        YOU ARE THE PROBLEM... YOU ALLOW IT SUPPORT IT AND YOU SHOULD CLAIM YOUR LOVE OF IT (UNTIL THEY COME FOR YOU THEN I AM SURE YOU WILL WANT US ALL TO HELP WITH YOUR LEGAL FUND)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2014 @ 7:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One day, in the future
        Gorehound??? When did you get out of rehab?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2014 @ 2:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One day, in the future
        He came out to give you your seat back.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 31 Mar 2014 @ 2:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: One day, in the future
        "The entire series of events was set in motion by Aaron Swartz alone."
        
        I never said otherwise. However, no reasonable human being would have thought that he would be charged with the offenses he was charged with, or that he would be facing potentially a substantial prison sentence. The only peril that a reasonable person would have expected would have been a trespassing charge.
        
        So you're saying that if you knowingly put yourself in peril of a minor charge and then get slapped with a litany of major charges,you should have somehow expected that and taken it in stride? C'mon man.
        
        The prosecutors, in my opinion, abused their power by a lot, for political reasons. That abuse was a major factor in his suicide. He might have already been standing near the edge, but the prosecutors pushed him over it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2014 @ 3:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One day, in the future
        I never said otherwise. However, no reasonable human being would have thought that he would be charged with the offenses he was charged with, or that he would be facing potentially a substantial prison sentence.
        
        On his previous adventure, he was questioned regarding a violation of CFAA. If he had half a brain (which he clearly did) he probably became familiar with the consequences when the FBI was up his ass. Sorry, your excuses are bullshit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 1 Apr 2014 @ 8:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One day, in the future
        I'm not making excuses at all. My reasoning may very well be incorrect, but your response has not demonstrated that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - art guerrilla (profile), 31 Mar 2014 @ 6:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: One day, in the future
        quote from some random status-quo apologist:
        the entire series of events was set in motion by martin luther king alone. he was previously investigated by the feebs for similar 'stunts' and knew, or should have known that he was putting his WHOLE FUCKING RACE IN LEGAL PERIL.
        but he did it anyway...
        
        the entire series of events was set in motion by jesus of nazareth alone. he was previously investigated by legal authorities for similar 'stunts' and knew, or should have known that he was putting the whole of humanity in mortal peril.
        but he did it anyway...
        
        the authoritarian's script:
        the entire series of events was set in motion by (FILL IN THE BLANK w/DISSIDENT'S NAME) alone. he/she/they were previously slandered and maligned by (NAME OF AUTHORITY) for similar (WHATEVER WE DON'T LIKE) and knew, or should have known that he/she/they were putting themselves in 'legal' (sic) peril. but he/she/they did it anyway...
        
        wormtongues have ever been the same throughout his story...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2014 @ 10:40am
    
    Re: Re: One day, in the future
    You seem nice.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2014 @ 11:44am
    
    Re: Re: One day, in the future
    " He took pains to shroud his identity online, hide from cameras..."
    
    This portion of your list of crimes is NOT a crime. you don't have to smile and face every camera you pass or take a certain route to make sure law enforcement knows who you are. Nothing you listed here is a crime. This just proves you (as well as MIT and the prosecution) was out to get a man you didn't like. Making bogus claims like these (and the tresspassing, hacking, etc) shows that people aren't being impartial on this. If you're not impartial, that leads to stupid claims....
    
    "Swartz knew what he was doing was wrong."
    
    Point made. I truly believe Swartz thought what he was doing was legal and his moral obligation. He was trying to fight an injustice.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2014 @ 12:30pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: One day, in the future
      You are kidding, right? You think covering his face with his bike helmet is not smiling and facing the camera? It's the same action bank robbers and liquor store stick-up boys take to keep from being identified committing their crimes.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Gwiz (profile), 31 Mar 2014 @ 1:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: One day, in the future
        It's the same action bank robbers and liquor store stick-up boys take to keep from being identified committing their crimes.
        
        And he was trespassing at the time. Covering up his face may implicate him on the trespassing charge, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the CFAA charges brought by the Federal government.
        
        I believe he was willing to face the charges for the trespassing, but didn't believe that what he did was anything more that a minor misdemeanor.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2014 @ 2:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One day, in the future
        He was trespassing for the sole purpose of carrying out the CFAA crimes for which he is charged.
        
        I believe he was willing to face the charges for the trespassing,
        
        Based on what? wishful thinking? He ran when the cop hailed him.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 1 Apr 2014 @ 8:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One day, in the future
        Keep parroting your imaginary crimes. The best "crime" you could come with that could be tried at court was trespassing and I have my doubts about it anyway. Shouting it non-stop doesn't make a lie the truth.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 1 Apr 2014 @ 8:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One day, in the future
        "the sole purpose of carrying out the CFAA crimes for which he is charged"
        
        This is the worst kind of obfuscation. Until the DOJ went all hulk and decided to egregiously misapply the CFAA, nobody would have thought that what he was doing was "carrying out CFAA crimes".
        
        I still don't think he committed any CFAA crimes whatsoever. The DOJ's case was nonsensical. It looks purely political, malicious, and spiteful to me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2014 @ 9:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One day, in the future
        This is the worst kind of obfuscation. Until the DOJ went all hulk and decided to egregiously misapply the CFAA, nobody would have thought that what he was doing was "carrying out CFAA crimes".
        
        Well obviously Swartz and his legal team didn't think the CFAA was misapplied. He killed himself rather than be sentenced under the CFAA.
        
        And I reject the notion that he didn't know what he was doing. He was investigated under the CFAA for his PACER caper. He escaped prosecution because those documents were ALL in the public domain. He knew the JSTOR documents were NOT all public domain and what saved him in his previous brush with the Feds didn't apply.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 31 Mar 2014 @ 2:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: One day, in the future
        "It's the same action bank robbers and liquor store stick-up boys take to keep from being identified committing their crimes."
        
        It's also the kind of action that lots of people who aren't committing crimes(including myself) often engage in as a protest against surveillance cameras.
        
        Hiding from a camera does not mean you think you're engaging in some kind of major crime. In Swartz' case, I don't think he thought he was engaging in a major crime. I think he thought he was engaging in the minor one that he was: trespassing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2014 @ 4:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One day, in the future
        Yeah, that's what the stick-up boys fear.... getting busted for trespassing- not armed robbery.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2014 @ 3:31pm
    
    Re: Re: One day, in the future
    Oh, how very nice. Aaron did some things that were (possibly) (and possibly not) wrong, dubious, unethical, or illegal, and for that, he deserved to be threatened and bullied to death. Very nice. How reasonable. How sensible.
    
    This is like punishing your jaywalking (and don't tell me you don't) by having you pepper-sprayed, billy-clubbed, handcuffed, and shot in the back 14 times. (Welcome to Albequerque.)
    
    A proportionate response to this would have been to have a meeting with MIT and JSTOR personnel and Aaron to sit down and arrive at a mutual understanding. (Not agreement: understanding.) Maybe a compromise could have been worked out. Or maybe not. But there was no reason for MIT and JSTOR and prosecutors to aggressively, viciously, and gleefully attack this kid.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2014 @ 4:01pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: One day, in the future
      This is like punishing your jaywalking (and don't tell me you don't) by having you pepper-sprayed, billy-clubbed, handcuffed, and shot in the back 14 times. (Welcome to Albequerque.)
      
      Nobody laid a finger on this kid. Try again.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 1 Apr 2014 @ 8:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: One day, in the future
        Wait, do you actually think that what the DOJ did to him isn't at least as injurious as just beating the crap out of him? Beating the crap out of him would have been far, far kinder.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JMT (profile), 31 Mar 2014 @ 4:42pm
    
    Re: Re: One day, in the future
    "Swartz knew what he was doing was wrong."
    
    No, Swartz knew some people did not want him to do what he was doing, but he did not think what he was doing was wrong. And many, many people agree with his position.
    
    "He took pains to shroud his identity online, hide from cameras, run from the cops, etc."
    
    Not wanting to be identified is pretty logical under the circumstances, but again doesn't make his actions wrong. But I'd love for you to expand on the whole "run from the cops" thing.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2014 @ 7:43pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: One day, in the future
      But I'd love for you to expand on the whole "run from the cops" thing.
      
      OK, here you go. From The NYT:
      
      "Perhaps suspecting he was being watched, Mr. Swartz moved the computer. But M.I.T.�s tech team believed it had tracked it to the fourth floor of the same Building 16. The university called for �police presence.�
      
      A little after 2 p.m., according to the government, Mr. Swartz was spotted heading down Massachusetts Avenue within a mile of M.I.T. After being questioned by an M.I.T. police officer, he dropped his bike and ran (according to the M.I.T. timeline, he was stopped by an M.I.T. police captain and Mr. Pickett). He was carrying a data storage device with a program on it, the government says, that tied him to the netbook."
      
      We good now?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - JMT (profile), 1 Apr 2014 @ 12:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: One day, in the future
        Bit less dramatic than I was expecting, but we good. :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2014 @ 9:50am

They thought they meant neutral colors , not actually being a neutral party. lawyer speak is so hard to decipher sometimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John William Nelson (profile), 31 Mar 2014 @ 10:00am

Prosecutor should be fired . . . but won't be
The prosecutor is a belt-notcher. "Let me measure my manhood by showing you the notches of convictions I have on my belt."

A petty, petty man who deserves to be fired for ignoring the professionalism the legal profession teaches.

Sadly, he is also more the norm than the exception in prosecutorial offices. It's not about justice, or the truth, but how big their endowment is because of who they were able to get in jail.

In fact, it's often a bigger win for these jackasses if the facts are bad for them. "I just put an innocent in jail. I'm that good."

I hate prosecutors like Heymann. Sadly, so many of them are exactly this jackass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2014 @ 10:24am
  
  Re: Prosecutor should be fired . . . but won't be
  Then you should shoot 'prosecutorial discretion' in the head like the demon that it is. For it was 'prosecutorial descretion' that allowed Heymann to pile the pressure on. For it is 'prosecutorial discretion' that allows for plea-bargains that are so ludicrously weighted in favour of the prosecutor that it feels like the 'criminal' has to take the deal.
  
  But MIT staff who praised the prosecutor should be fired and blackballed from ever working in tech again, as they have directlky and irrevocably harmed MIT's stance on openness.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John William Nelson (profile), 1 Apr 2014 @ 5:36am
    
    Re: Re: Prosecutor should be fired . . . but won't be
    Prosecutorial discretion is not the problem. The culture of prosecutor's offices is the problem.
    
    I've seen the effects. I've seen gentle souls go in and come out terrible people. I've had other friends flat out tell me the atmosphere is toxic.
    
    In most prosecutor's offices, there is little pursuit of truth or justice. Only pursuit of the conviction, with no care for whether the Defendant is innocent or if the correct person is caught.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2014 @ 10:58am

All for copyright infringement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JEDIDIAH, 31 Mar 2014 @ 2:39pm
  
  Robber Baron land grab.
  Not all grants of monopoly are valid. Those that aren't should be treated as such.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AjStechd (profile), 31 Mar 2014 @ 11:28am

I'm fascinated by how accurately I can sum up the type of person I'm dealing with by reading just a few simple sentences from them on topics like these.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AjStechd (profile), 31 Mar 2014 @ 12:36pm

If you believe the punishment fits the crime in this situation, I hope you get to experience that first hand one day. There's the letter of the law, and then there's the spirit of the law. Prosecutors are some of the worst people in existence, countless examples demonstrate this. If you believe destroying this man's life was justified, you truly do not understand the details of the case or the world you live in. You're cheering your own demise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JEDIDIAH, 31 Mar 2014 @ 2:42pm
  
  It aint me.
  He's just kidding himself that he can never be the victim.
  
  This is how oppressive regimes get built.
  
  People never imagine the nightmare creations they help into existence would ever be turned against them. They think their smugness will protect them like some kind of magic underwear.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]